Trend Micro Maximum Security 2015 PCmag review

Q:Trend Micro Maximum Security 2015 PCmag review

When I challenged Trend Micro to protect a virtual machine test system from my current collection of malware samples, it wiped out 66 percent of them on sight. It whacked quite a few more when I tried to launch them. Its detection rate of 89 percent and overall score of 8.9 put it in between F-Secure Internet Security 2015 and Bitdefender Total Security 2015.

I tested the product's ability to block malicious URLs using newly-discovered URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. When initially tested, Trend Micro's 80 percent blocking rate for malicious URLs was a new high score. However, a few days later it was deposed by McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015, which blocked 85 percent. Both scores are impressive, given that the current average is 32 percent.Symantec Norton Security, tested simultaneously with Trend Micro, managed to block 51 percent.

A full scan of my standard test system took just 20 minutes. Because Trend Micro avoids re-scanning files already found to be safe, a repeat scan finished in less than a minute.

Trend Micro's impressive handling of malicious URLs also carried over to my test of its phishing protection ability. Its detection rate lagged just 4 percentage points behind that of Norton. Very few products come close to Norton's fraud detection rate.

Small Performance HitI wondered whether the additional installation of the password manager, safe browser, vault, and especially SafeSync would make this suite more of a resource eater than Trend Micro's entry level suite. In fact, its scores in my performance tests were the same, within a percent or two.

My boot time test, which measures the time from the start of the boot process (as reported by Windows) until the system is ready for use took 31 percent longer with this suite installed than with no suite. Given that most people rarely reboot more than once per day, this probably won't be noticeable.

A script that moves and copies many large files took 7 percent longer with Trend Micro watching. That's actually a bit better than the current average of 9 percent. And another script that repeatedly zips and unzips those files took 13 percent longer, just a little above the current average of 10 percent.

There are definitely suites with lower overall impact. Webroot's average impact across my three tests was just 3 percent. F-Secure and Bitdefender averaged 4 percent. Even so, I doubt you'll be able to perceive any system slowdown after installing Trend Micro.

Sub-Ratings:Note: These sub-ratings contribute to a product's overall star rating, as do other factors, including ease of use in real-world testing, bonus features, and overall integration of features.Firewall: n/aAntivirus: Performance: Antispam: Privacy: Parental Control:

Full Article

RELEVANCY SCORE
200

Preferred Solution:
Trend Micro Maximum Security 2015 PCmag review

I recommend downloading and running Reimage. It's a computer repair tool that has been proven to identify and fix many Windows problems with a high level of success.

Hands-On TestingTo get a feel for the program's protection, I challenged it with my collection of malware samples. Its real-time protection kicked in the moment I opened the sample folder, quickly eliminating 66 percent of the samples. Note, though, that F-Secure Anti-Virus 2015 wiped out 83 percent of those same samples on sight.

Next, I launched the samples that survived the initial massacre. In several cases it reported the sample or one of its components as suspicious, in some cases with the warning "Please do not open this file unless you trust its source." That seems a bit weak to me?a user could accidentally choose to run malware detected in this way. I made sure to avoid that error.

With 89 percent detection and 8.7 points overall, Trend Micro is just behind F-Secure among products tested with this same malware collection. Note, though, that I give greater weight to ratings from the independent labs than to my simple hands-on test.

Trend Micro's Smart Protection Network gathers telemetry from millions of computers. Among other things, it identifies malware-hosting websites, and instructs your local antivirus to prevent access to those sites. Based on my testing, it really works. The test starts with a feed of very new malicious URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. I simply launch each URL and note whether the product blocks URL access, eliminates the download, or does nothing.

Trend Micro detected 80 percent of the samples, almost all of them at th... Read more

Definitely a ContenderBitdefender's antivirus technology routinely earns excellent scores from the independent testing labs, though it didn't do quite as well in my hands-on malware blocking test. It holds the top score in my phishing protection test, and its parental control system works across multiple Windows and Android devices. If its strengths match your needs, it can be a very good choice. However, it's not going to unseat Norton Internet Security (2014) as PCMag's security suite Editors' Choice.

Malicious URL BlockingThe big difference between F-Secure's suite and the standalone antivirus is the addition of browser protection. This component blocks access to malware-hosting URLs, and it did well in testing.

I started with a collection of newly-discovered malicious URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas, none of them more than four hours old. Some had already vanished, but I kept launching them one after another until I had results for 100 still-working URLs.

F-Secure's standalone antivirus lacks browser protection, but it did manage to wipe out 34 percent of the malicious payloads during or immediately after download. That's just slightly better than the average blocking rate among current programs.

So-So Phishing DetectionThe browser protection component also serves to steer users away from visiting phishing sites?fraudulent sites that attempt to steal login credentials. However, it wasn't nearly as effective as it was against malware-hosting URLs.

I started by collecting suspected phishing URLs from various sites. Then I launched each simultaneously on five test systems. Naturally one test system relied on F-Secure's protection. Another used Norton Internet Security (2014) at Amazon. The remaining three relied on the b... Read more

A:F-Secure Internet Security 2015 PCmag review

F-Secure is good, but it's quite expensive for an antivirus that offers fewer components, better use Emsisoft, Norton or Kaspersky.

Shared AntivirusAvast's lab test scores range from best to worst. It received AAA-level certification fromDennis Technology Labs and rated Advanced+ in two tests by AV-Comparatives. However, "crazy many" false positives caused it to fail the file detection test from that same lab. Bitdefender and Kaspersky generally take top scores across the board.

In my own hands-on malware blocking test, Avast earned 9.0 of 10 possible point, better than most products tested using this same malware collection. Webroot SecureAnywhere Internet Security Plus (2015)earned a perfect 10 in this test.

My malicious URL blocking test uses newly-discovered malware-hosting URLs, typically no more than four hours old. When I challenged Avast with about 100 of these, it blocked all access to 29 percent at the URL level and eliminated another 43 percent during download, for a total block rate of 72 percent. That's quite good, though McAfee Internet Security 2015 managed to block 85 percent.

Good, Not GreatAvast Internet Security 2015 offers almost all of the expected suite components (parental control is the exception), but their effectiveness varies. I like the innovative home router scan; this is an area that most vendors overlook. And Avast offers plenty of other bonus features. The problem is, top suites just do a better job overall.

Shared AntivirusThis suite builds on the antivirus protection found in the standalone G Data Antivirus 2015. Please read that review for full details regarding the testing that I've summarized below.

West Coast Labs certifies G Data's technology for virus detection, and it received VB100 certification in all of the recent Virus Bulletin tests that included it. In the latest test by AV-Test Institute, G Data received 6 of 6 possible points for protection against malware and totaled 16 of 18 possible points. That's good, but Kaspersky Internet Security (2015) at Amazon and Avira Internet Security Suite 2015 scored a perfect 18. The other labs that I follow don't include G Data.

G Data also fared well in my malicious URL blocking test. When exposed to 100 newly discovered malware-hosting URLs, it prevented 51 percent of the downloads, in most cases by blocking the browser from all access to the URL. The current average protection rate for this test is 40 percent.

Shared Antivirus FeaturesThe antivirus component in this suite is almost the same as the free Avira Antivirus 2015. The main difference is that the free edition relies on a browser plug-in for detecting malicious and fraudulent websites, whereas the Pro edition filters such sites below the browser level. That's an important distinction, because the free edition doesn't currently offer a plug-in for Internet Explorer.

Avira doesn't participate in testing with all the independent labs I follow, but those that do test it generally give it good ratings. The only significant exception is a poor score in a test by AV-Test Institute that specifically measures the ability of an antivirus product to completely clean up a detected malware infestation.

In my own hands-on malware blocking test, Avira didn't fare so well. With 76 percent detection and an overall score of 7.4 points (out of a possible 10), it's near the bottom.Webroot SecureAnywhere Internet Security Plus (2015) earned the best score of products tested using my current malware collection; it managed a perfect 10.

As noted, the suite and free antivirus use different components to detect and block malware-hosting URLs, so I expected to see differing result in my malicious URL blocking test. Despite different styles of malicious URL detection and a completely different (but very new) set of test URLs, the two products earned almost identical scores, for a protection rate of 58 percent. That's... Read more

A:Avira Internet Security Suite 2015 PCmag review

Baloney. I used Avira to clean up an infected computer that was running Webroot. LSS, I don't have faith in this review.

Pros: Lots of tools to protect privacy.
Fast installation.
Very good webfilter.

Cons: Slow boot time
Virus and malware removal is done by Trend Micro's Housecall, an online system, rather than locally.

Conclusion: Trend Micro leaped forward and took a risk in 2011. It didn't for the 2012 suites, but it didn't have to. Instead, 2012 sees a solid upgrade, with some clever new offerings. What holds back Trend Micro Titanium Maximum Security are its benchmarks. The lacklustre threat removal scores don't stand up against the more well-rounded competition, and the abysmal boot-time impact must be improved. If Titanium can polish those areas, then that would be showing some mettle we could really get behind.
Rating: 4 Stars (Very Good)

Overview:
Following on last year's big overhaul, Trend Micro makes a series of smaller changes to this year's Titanium security suites. While we loved the baked-in mobile support, free storage and file encryption, inconsistent benchmarks hold the suites back.

Full review.

A:Trend Micro Titanium Maximum Security 2012

This suite is a bit different than others since they don't have their own Firewall. But implemented a feature called "Firewall Booster" to complement through Windows Firewall.

problem in brief - trying to install Trend Micro Titanium Maximum Security 2011 on a Vista Home Prem. SP2 machine, previously using Trend Anti-virus + Antispyware (not sure which version - guessing 2010)when I try to open the setup file on the CD its giving me a C++ Runtime Error.. I've tried everything - clean boot, doing a registry scan, downloading a newer version of the setup from the website nothing is working..

Worst thing is - its a customers machine, and they are sitting here at the shop watching me try to get this software going, and I hate having people looking over my shoulder while I'm trying to work.

I bought Windows 8 yesterday on a disc and when I try and install it I am told I have to uninstall Trend Micro Titanium Maximum Security antivirus which I do. Then I try and install Windows 8 again and it still says I need to uninstall the antivirus program. I got in touch Trend Micro tech support and they sent me a tool to remove it which I used and when I try and install Windows 8 it still won't install and tells me to uninstall Trend Micro. Has anybody else had this problem.

A:Windows 8 and Micro Trend Titanium Maximum Security

You can clean install 8 to remove it fully, but everything will be wiped.

I am trying to download the above anti virus software, but, it is telling me I have to remove malware bytes before I can install, what are my options, I would like to keep malware bytes pro on my computer as well.Help

A:installation of Trend Micro Titanium Maximum Security

Hello -Please see http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?showtopic=122284&view=findpost&p=644441 read and follow the TOP item only, that describes how to Uninstall and then Reinstall the Pro version of Malwarebytes, after you install your Trend Micro.This is not unusual for Antivirus programs to ask for a "clean slate" when they are installed.Make a note of your Key and ID for Malwarbytes' Anti-Malware Pro version and keep them in a safe place (Notepad will do for now, or print them out).

Detection : For this test AV-Test used 105,000 malware samples colected in the recent months. Trend Micro Titanium Maximum Security 2012 got outstanding results , managing to detect 99.25% of the malware samples. The result is significantly higher than the industry average for July (96.14%).

Removal : The removal of active malware threats has revealed some problems in Trend Micro Titanium Maximum Security 2012. AV-Test installed 31 malware samples on a virtual machine.Trend Micro's new flagship has detected 30 samples, but it was able to remove only 20 threats.As a result Trend Micro Titanium Maximum Security 2012 got a 64,5% disinfection rate for the removal test, well below the average of the industry which is 80.7%.

Detection : For this test AV-Test used 105,000 malware samples colected in the recent months. Trend Micro Titanium Maximum Security 2012 got outstanding results , managing to detect 99.25% of the malware samples. The result is significantly higher than the industry average for July (96.14%).

Removal : The removal of active malware threats has revealed some problems in Trend Micro Titanium Maximum Security 2012. AV-Test installed 31 malware samples on a virtual machine.Trend Micro's new flagship has detected 30 samples, but it was able to remove only 20 threats.As a result Trend Micro Titanium Maximum Security 2012 got a 64,5% disinfection rate for the removal test, well below the average of the industry which is 80.7%.

Pros - Good scores in independent lab tests and our hands-on tests. New high score in malicious URL blocking. Website rating, with details. Numerous bonus features.Cons - Phishing detection rate less than Chrome or Firefox alone. Firewall does not stealth ports in all cases. Most of the product's 12 services could be disabled by malware.Bottom Line - McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015 earns a new top score in our malicious URL blocking test, and it gets good ratings from the independent labs. It comes with a raft of useful bonus tools, though the bonus firewall seemed a bit wobbly in our testing.Read more: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2469309,00.asp

A:McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015 PCmag review

i have red the review a few hours ago and the most disturbing thing for me is that mcafee can't protect it's self from malware.also the firewall isn't good but you can always use windows built in firewall.if they improve those components i believe more people will trust them because some components are very good such as web blocking(site adviser)

Hands-On TestingIn addition to checking scores with the major testing labs, I put each antivirus through hands-on testing. I start by opening a folder containing a collection of malware samples. The simple access that occurs when Windows Explorer gets file information for display was enough to trigger AVG's real-time protection. It detected 72 percent of the samples on sight and offered to remove them.

Next, I launched the samples that weren't wiped out immediately. Overall, AVG detected 79 percent of these samples and earned 7.8 of 10 possible points. That's definitely on the low side, but I give significantly more weight to the independent lab tests. My own malware-blocking test serves mostly to give me hands-on experience with each product's way of handling real-time protection.

One feature of AVG's Web TuneUp browser extension is Site Safety, which promises to warn you before you visit a "risky or dangerous website." Apparently Site Safety doesn't apply to URLs that point directly to malware programs; Site Safety didn't kick in at all during my malicious URL blocking test. However, of the 100-odd newly reported malicious URLs I tried, the real-time protection component wiped out 54 percent. That's better than the current average of 41 percent.

McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015 holds the top score in this test, with 85 percent of the URLs blocked. Avast managed a respectable 72 percent.

Malicious URL BlockingThanks to a real-time feed supplied by MRG-Effitas, I have access to a continually updated list of malicious URLs. I use these to check how each antivirus product handles extremely new threats. Does it block access to the URL, wipe out the downloaded malware, or just sit there doing nothing?

Bitdefender completely blocked access to 18 percent of the live malicious URLs I used for testing, but didn't wipe out any of the downloads that got through. It might well have caught those on launch, but that's not what this test measures. I've run two dozen products through this test so far, each with URLs no more than four hours old. The average protection rate is 33 percent, almost twice what Bitdefender managed. I'll be interested to see how Norton AntiVirus (2014) and Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2014) do when it's their turn for this test.

Bitdefender Antivirus Plus 2015 Malware Blocking Chart

Good Malware BlockingI rely more and more on the independent labs for in-depth antivirus testing, but I always need to do my own hands-on testing, to get a feel for the product's protection. To start, I opened a folder containing my just-gathered new set of malware samples. Bitdefender quickly and quietly wiped out 83 percent of those samples.

Next I launched the remaining samples and noted the antivirus's reaction. It completely missed several, ending up with an overall detection rate of 86 percent and an overall score of 8.... Read more

During a full antivirus scan, G Data reports both time elapsed and time remaining. At one point, the sum of those two times exceeded 80 minutes. However, the scan actually completed in 48 minutes. That's a good bit longer than the current average of 28 minutes to scan a clean system. Some antivirus products speed subsequent scans by skipping known safe files. Comodo Antivirus 8, for example, re-scanned my test system in less than two minutes. Not G Data; a repeat scan took just as long.

Good Malware BlockingWhen I exposed G Data to a folder containing my current collection of malware samples, it wiped out most of them right away, and eliminated a few more when I tried to launch them. One way or another, G Data detected 93 percent of the samples and scored 9.3 of 10 possible points. Few products have scored better in this test, though Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2015) did manage a perfect 10.

As always, I also checked the product's reaction to a folder containing modified versions of the same samples. Each of the modified samples has a different filename and file size from the original, and a few non-executable bytes are also different. G Data didn't immediately recognize 22 percent of the samples whose originals were wiped out on sight. Interestingly, it did recognize several modified files whose originals weren't caught until I tried to launch them. Clearly there are multiple levels of protection going on here.

I also tested Avira using hand-modified versions of the same sample set. For each file, I changed the name, appended nulls to change the file size, and tweaked some non-executable characters. Avira missed three of the tweaked files. However, it detected another two tweaked files whose originals it missed. I can't explain that.

After launching all of the remaining samples, I evaluated how well Avira handled them. Overall, it detected 76 percent of the malware samples and scored 7.4 points, quite a drop from last year.

Good Malicious URL BlockingIn the real world, you're more likely to encounter a brand-new malware attack via a malicious or compromised website, so I test for that ability as well. I start with a feed of newly-discovered malicious URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. After filtering out those that don't point directly to malicious executables, I try loading each one in a browser to see what (if anything) the antivirus will do.

Quite a few of the URLs were already defunct, despite being no more than four hours... Read more

A:Avira Free Antivirus 2015 PCmag review

Avira need to put some more effort because the competition is pretty high

Very Good Malware BlockingAs with SuperAntiSpyware Professional 6.0, Panda's on-access scanning doesn't spring into action until you attempt to execute a file. Unlike SuperAntiSpyware, Panda did a good job blocking malware at launch. It deleted three quarters of the samples before they could execute.

A few of the samples did manage to launch; Panda caught some of those later in the process. Its detection rate of 86 percent is tied with Bitdefender for the best detection rate among products tested with my current sample set. Panda's overall score of 8.0 can't beat Bitdefender's 8.3 points, but it's better than the rest of the current group, includingKaspersky Anti-Virus (2015)'s 7.9 points.

Panda Free Antivirus 2015 Malware Blocking Chart

You'll note in the chart that AVG AntiVirus FREE 2014 and various others tested with my previous malware collection made a significantly better showing. That was a different set of samples, though, and the independent testing labs give very good scores to Panda, Kaspersky, and Bitdefender.

As part of my testing, I installed about 20 PCMag utilities. Panda's behavior-based malware detection identified a temporary file created by one of them as malicious, though when I looked at the detailed log it merely said "suspicious." I submitted the file to VirusTotal, to be sure it wasn't actually infected. All of the 53 antivirus engines hosted on VirusTotal gave it a clean bill of health... Read more

A:Panda Free Antivirus 2015 PCmag review

Does it differ from Panda Cloud Free?( I mean ,Are they two seperate products or this one is the new follower?)

Pros Extremely small and light on resources. Fast install, super-fast scan. Top marks in two independent lab tests. Perfect score in hands-on malware blocking test. Very good malicious URL blocking. Can control protected computers from Web console. Good phishing protection.Cons Requires Internet connectivity for full protection.

Bottom Line Two independent testing labs have given Webroot SecureAnywhere AntiVirus (2015) their top ratings, and it earned a perfect score in our hands-on malware blocking test. Add the fact that it's the smallest antivirus around and you've got a definite Editors' Choice.Read more: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2470312,00.asp

Good Malware BlockingF-Secure also performed well in my own hands-on malware blocking test. When I opened a folder containing my standard collection of malware samples, the software wiped out 83 percent of them right away. By contrast, Trend Micro Antivirus+ 2015$39.99 at Trend Micro detected just 66 percent of the same samples on sight.

I keep a second set of samples on hand, tweaked versions of my main collection. For each file, I change the name, append nulls to make the file size different, and modify a few non-executable bytes. Considering just the ones whose originals it did detect, F-Secure's real-time protection failed to recognize over 40 percent of the modified versions.

When I launched the few remaining samples, F-Secure's DeepGuard behavioral detection kicked in and blocked one as harmful. Overall, F-Secure detected 93 percent of the samples and earned 9.3 points, better than almost all products tested with this malware collection.

F-Secure's standalone antivirus doesn't include browser protection?that feature is reserved for the full security suite. In my malicious URL blocking test, which relies on a feed of very new malicious URLs from MRG-Effitas, F-Secure did wipe out 36 percent of the downloaded files. That's a bit better than the current average of 32 percent. Trend Micro has the current high score for this test, with 80 percent blocked, almost all of them at the URL level.

Real-time ProtectionFor some antivirus products, the minimal file access that occurs when Windows Explorer displays the filename is sufficient to trigger real-time protection. Avast waits until just before a program executes to run a real-time scan. In testing, it wiped out almost 80 percent of my malware samples immediately on launch.

Avast detected most of the remaining samples at some point as they attempted to install and run. In a couple of cases, it activated a powerful analysis tool called DeepScan. Avast also invoked DeepScan to make sure that a couple of my malware-testing programs weren't themselves malicious.

In one case, fortunately the last sample I tested, Avast requested a boot time scan for complete cleanup. That scan took almost an hour, and required my attention every so often to make decisions about the disposition of particular malware traces. You can launch a boot time scan at will, if you suspect the regular scan has missed something.

One way or another, Avast detected 93 percent of my samples, the same asF-Secure Anti-Virus 2015. However, because Avast allowed installation of some executable malware traces, its final score came out to 9.0 points, while F-Secure managed 9.3. The absolute winner among products tested with this sample set is Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2015), which earned 10 of 10 possible points.

Avast's previous edition was among the first products exposed to my malicious URL blocking test. For many, many months, its... Read more

I ran a scan with Trend Micro, and they recommend having the log reviewed by you good folks to determine what REALLY should be removed, instead of chopping the whole lot. Can someone point me in the right direction?

Issues I am having include not being able to access microsoft sites, i.e. outlook.com on one of the profiles on my PC, as well as not being able to access their help sites. I have also seemed to have lost shockwave plugins in Chrome in that profile, as well as the admin profile. The log is copied below, and thanks in advance for your advice!

Please note that I'm currently in training and my fixes need to be approved first, that may delay our fix a bit, but I will normally reply back in 24 hours.

If I don't reply after 2 days, feel free to PM me. ==========================================================================Some points for you to keep in mind:Backup any files that cannot be replaced. Removing malware can be unpredictable and this step can save a lot of heartaches if things don't go as planned. You can put them on a CD/DVD, external drive or a pen drive, anywhere except on the computer.We ask you to run different tools in a specific order to ensure the malware is completely removed from your machine, and running any additional tools may detect false positives, interfere with our tools, or cause unforeseen damage or system instability.Please do not run any tools or take any steps other than those I will provide for you while we work on your computer together. I need to be certain about the state of your computer in order to provide appropriate and effective steps for you to take. Most often "well intentioned" (and usually panic driven!) independent efforts can make things much worse for both of us. If at any point you would prefer to take your own steps please let me know, I will not be offended. I would be happy to focus on the many others who are waiting in line for ... Read more

Could Be GoodThere's no question that Webroot SecureAnywhere Internet Security Plus (2015) is the tiniest suite around, with the least impact on system resources. And it offers impressive antivirus protection, demonstrated by top marks in my own tests and independent lab tests.

However, it lacks a number of features found in most of its competition. There's no firewall, just extra support for Windows firewall. If you need spam filtering or parental control, this isn't the suite for you. But if your needs coincide with the features it does have, it can be a great fit.

Sub-Ratings:Note: These sub-ratings contribute to a product's overall star rating, as do other factors, including ease of use in real-world testing, bonus features, and overall integration of features.Firewall: n/aAntivirus: Performance: Antispam: n/aPrivacy: Parental Control: n/a

Shared AntivirusAntivirus protection in this suite is precisely the same as what you get with ESET NOD32 Antivirus 8, so I'll just summarize here. Read the antivirus review for full details.

ESET's technology gets high marks from almost all of the independent labs. It's one of just a handful that participated in all 12 of the last 12 tests by Virus Bulletin and received VB100 certification every time. It got the top rating in tests by AV-Comparatives and Dennis Technology Labs. Only AV-Test Institute gave it a so-so rating.

ESET didn't fare nearly as well in my own hands-on malware blocking test. I run this test mostly to get real-world experience of how each product handles malware attack, but I still like to see a good score. ESET scored 7.3 of 10 possible points, almost the lowest among products tested with my current sample set.

On the other hand, it did an extremely good job of blocking downloads from newly-discovered malicious URLs. It blocked 81 percent of the downloads, some by blocking all access to the URL and others by halting the download. With 85 percent blocking, McAfee Internet Security 2015 is the only product that's done better.

Other Shared FeaturesESET's social media scan will check that you've got your Facebook and Twitter accounts configured for maximum privacy. Of course, if you want the public to see your tweets, maximum Twitter privacy may not be quite what you want. The scanner includes links to each service... Read more

Hands On With the AntivirusThe test results from the big independent labs are certainly useful, but I like to run my own tests, to get a hand-on feel for how each product works. The test starts when I open a folder containing my collection of malware samples. It's not uncommon for a security product to immediately wipe out most of the samples. Bitdefender Total Security 2015 and F-Secure Internet Security 2015 both wiped out more than 80 percent of the samples on sight.

Norton's approach is different, with much less reliance on simple signature-based detection. It wiped out 28 percent of the samples on sight, but blocked and quarantined most of the rest when I tried to launch them. With an overall detection rate of 89 percent and an overall score of 8.3, it's just a hair behind Bitdefender.

You'll notice in the chart that many products tested using my previous malware collection scored quite a bit higher. Since it was a different collection, scores aren't directly comparable. And I do give more weight to results from the independent labs.

Good Malicious URL BlockingMy malicious URL blocking test starts with a feed of newly discovered nasty URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. I launch those that point directly to malicious executables, noting whether the security product blocked access to the URL, quashed the download, or simply did nothing. Despite being just a few hours old, many of the URLs are already no good. I keep at it until I have data for 100 ... Read more

A:Symantec Norton Security PCmag review

I do not like the bad detection of norton. Behavioral blocking and sonar is good but I like it when Antivirus detects even before executing.

Effective AntivirusWebroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2015) is the tiniest antivirus around, and its installation and scanning are both super-fast. The mega-suite is slightly bigger, but it still takes about one tenth the disk space of the average suite. Read my review of the antivirus for full details. I'll simply summarize here.

None of the six independent labs I follow currently include Webroot in their regular testing, though Dennis Technology Labs will add Webroot in the first quarter of 2015. A private test by Dennis Labs earlier this year revealed that Webroot would have earned top-level AAA certification. Webroot was also one of just three product to pass in a test by MRG-Effitas.

Webroot's malware detection relies on a cloud service that analyzes program behaviors, not on antivirus signatures. On detecting an unknown process, Webroot starts journaling all its actions and watching for signs that it's malicious. If a process steps over the line, Webroot reverses all of its actions. Until a process gets the green light, irreversible actions like transmitting information to the Internet are suppressed.

I observed this feature in action; some of my malware samples initially seemed to get past the antivirus, but after a few minutes it started wiping them out. In the end it earned a perfect 10 points in my hands-on malware blocking test.

The suite also earned a very good score in my malicious URL blocking test. This test challenges each antivirus with 100... Read more

ConsFirewall doesn't pass common tests. Mediocre antiphishing score. Parental control limited to content filtering. Bottom Line Antivirus is the best part of ESET Internet Security 10, but other components include an old-school firewall that fails some common tests and parental control that's limited to content filtering.

Very Good Malware BlockingIn addition to the company's own internal antivirus engine, Qihoo includes licensed engines from Bitdefender and Avira. However, you have to do a little work to make sure you're getting protection from those licensed engines. On the Virus Scan page you'll see icons for a total of five engines: 360 Cloud Scan Engine, System Repair Engine, QVMIII AI Engine, Bitdefender Engine, and Avira Engine. The last two are grayed by default, with an on/off switch that appears when you point to the icon. For testing, I turned both on.

Much ImprovedQihoo 360 Total Security Essential is a distinct improvement over its predecessor, 360 Internet Security. It gets great ratings from the independent testing labs, and it did well in all of our hands-on tests as well. On the flip side, I found that it erroneously marked one of my testing tools as malware. And while the behavior-based malware detection didn't pop up any notifications about actual malware samples, it flagged two PCMag utilities as suspicious.

Panda Free Antivirus 2015 remains our Editors' Choice for free antivirus. I'm particularly impressed with the availability of remote-control expert remediation for any malware that slips past the antivirus. I found Qihoo support to be not nearly as responsive. Even so, with a little tweaking Qihoo might well join Panda at the top. It's certainly worth a look.

An Excellent ChoiceKaspersky Internet Security (2016) is an all-around great security suite. The independent labs praise its antivirus protection to the skies, its firewall does the job without hassling the user, and its spam filter is more accurate than most. Even the parental control component boasts more features than most suites offer. Powerful remote management is icing on the cake. Kaspersky is a PCMag Editors' Choice security suite, sharing that honor with Bitdefender Internet Security 2015.

Good, Not GreatQihoo 360 Total Security Essential 8.6 packs in more security-related bonus features than any other free antivirus I can think of. Those features would be a lovely addition to an excellent free antivirus. The problem is that Qihoo's core antivirus protection doesn't quite measure up. There's not much to go on from the independent labs, but its scores in our own malware blocking and malicious URL blocking tests were just average. And somehow going from the previous edition to this one, its antiphishing score went from near the top to near the bottom.

If Qihoo's many extras fill you with delight, you can go ahead and use it. But if your aim is to get the best free antivirus protection you can, there are better choices. All five of the independent testing labs that I follow include both Avast Free Antivirus 2016 and AVG AntiVirus Free (2016) in their testing, giving them good marks overall. Panda Free Antivirus (2016) includes a collection of bonus features that almost rivals Qihoo's. All three are Editors' Choice winners for free antivirus.

Full Article

A:Qihoo 360 Total Security Essential 8.6 PCMag review

"But if your aim is to get the best free antivirus protection you can, there are better choices", I feel like who did this test has an agenda.

A Sweet SuiteBitdefender Internet Security 2016 has everything you'd want in a suite, and more. Its antivirus gets stellar scores in our tests and lab tests, and its antispam beat out all competitors for accuracy. The firewall doesn't attempt fancy exploit blocking, but it's tough and hassle-free. Add features like ransomware protection, password management, and secure browsing, and you've got a suite with power to spare.

Along with Kaspersky Internet Security (2016), Bitdefender is a security suite Editors' Choice. Other products have earned the Editors' Choice rating for different variations on the security suite concept. In particular, McAfee LiveSafe 2015 and Symantec Norton Security are our Editors' Choice products for cross-platform multi-device security.

Sub-Ratings:Note: These sub-ratings contribute to a product's overall star rating, as do other factors, including ease of use in real-world testing, bonus features, and overall integration of features.Firewall: Antivirus: Performance: Antispam: Privacy: Parental Control:

Full Article

A:Bitdefender Internet Security 2016 PCMag review

Few people realize that Bitdefender simply uses Windows Firewall and adds some policies to it. Windows Firewall does work rather well with outbound notifications...

Shared AntivirusThe antivirus protection in this suite identical with Comodo Antivirus 8. You can read that review to get full details, but I'll summarize here.

Most of the labs I follow don't include Comodo in their testing. It did manage 16 of 18 possible points in AV-Test Institute's three-part antivirus test, which is good. However, Avira Internet Security Suite 2015 and Kaspersky Internet Security (2015) both managed a perfect 18 points in that same test.

In my own hands-on malware blocking test, Comodo detected 83 percent of the samples and scored 8.3 of 10 possible points, putting it a mere fraction behind Bitdefender Internet Security 2015. My Comodo contact pointed out that the software's automatic sandboxing feature doesn't kick in for files already present when the product is installed. I followed his instructions to test in such a way that auto-sandboxing would have a chance, but doing so didn't change the results.

Comodo's performance in my antiphishing test was utterly dismal. It hardly detected any fraudulent websites. In fact, its detection rate came in 94 percentage points below that of Symantec Norton Security, which consistently aces this test. My Comodo contact advised that the suite should do better at antiphishing and malicious URL blocking, so I reran the phishing test. After one new round of testing, I found no appreciable difference, so I didn't continue.

Bottom LineThe antivirus components of F-Secure Internet Security scored high in our testing, aided by the suite-specific Browsing Protection features. However, the rest of its components don't make up a top-notch suite.

Full article: F-Secure Internet Security (2017)

A:F-Secure Internet Security 2017 Review by PCMag 3,5/5 stars

F-Secure is definitely not the best Internet Security Suite available for the price. It does ok but not the best in terms of detection rates & has very little extra features. I am not a big fan of the GUI or settings either but that's just me.

ProsIncludes password manager, software updater, and many other Avira tools. Excellent scores from antivirus labs. Very good score in malicious URL blocking test. Free.ConsMany components require payment for full functionality. Sluggish antivirus protection and scanning. Real-time protection missed some executable malware files.Bottom LineAvira Free Security Suite, introduced this year, packs a goodly collection of features beyond antivirus, but it doesn't come close to the power of a full-scale, paid security suite

My Trend Titanium Maximum Security 2012 all of a suddenly found a virus, deleted it, now the toolbar says ..... protection outdated connect to the internet then verify ..... My internet connection is working fine, I have Windows Vista 32 bit , i am not sure why it will not update itself and stay verified after i click the verify button. It has been working perfectly fine since renewing and updating in february of 2012. The only wierd thing that has happened since then is my date and time on the toolbar will not stay updated (not sure if this matters) So i have my Hijackthis log if anyone could give me some guidance:

I am thinking this problem is a virus, before doing the virus scan I was also being redirected by google to other sites. After looking at several of the other threads on here I realize that info may be important too. Please any help would be great.